Member what Oregon State fans told us when Riley was hired?

[Landlord]

19 hours ago, Redreign22 said:

I was ran off this board for lobbying for Frost to replace Riley his entire first year. I even emailed all the brass at UNL. Posted my reply from Perlman. Some members came at me pretty hard for it. I didnt post for a year. I just stalked anonymously. ; )

 

 

 

You weren't ran off - you decided to stop putting up with the large amounts of criticism you (rightfully) got for such a misguided and nonsensical idea.

[Redreign22]

13 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

 

You weren't ran off - you decided to stop putting up with the large amounts of criticism you (rightfully) got for such a misguided and nonsensical idea.

Well yelling at the TV wasnt helping. It was at least useful for theraputic venting of my frustrations.

[Whistlepig]

1 hour ago, HuskerMav11 said:

 

Can someone verify that I haven't stroked out? I probably re-read this paragraph 4 times and can't make sense of what is being said. 

pretty simple concepts- 

So the summary is:

if you believe what Eichost said when he fired Bo then you're whole premise is wrong.

[Whistlepig]

40 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

 

You weren't ran off - you decided to stop putting up with the large amounts of criticism you (rightfully) got for such a misguided and nonsensical idea.

compared to hiring a .500 career coach in his waning years  and not hiring an up and comer with winning credentials is misguided and non-nonsensical how?

Eichorst knows that answer, oh yeah his logic got him fired and UFC thanks him for being a dipwad

Edited November 6, 2017 by Whistlepig

[HuskerMav11]

14 minutes ago, Whistlepig said:

pretty simple concepts- 

So the summary is:

if you believe what Eichost said when he fired Bo then you're whole premise is wrong.

 

You need to work on your English composition. I wasn't talking about the content of the post.

 

But I have zero clue what Eichorst said about Bo. I'm talking about the multiple instances of Bo losing his s#!t. The guy had zero composure.

 

Or are you denying that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Bo Pelini is a hot head?

[Landlord]

7 minutes ago, Whistlepig said:

compared to hiring a .500 career coach in his waning years  and not hiring an up and comer with winning credentials is misguided and non-nonsensical how?

 

 

No. Seriously suggesting we should fire Mike Riley in his first season after 5-6 games and hire Scott Frost is misguided and non-sensical.

[Whistlepig]

3 minutes ago, HuskerMav11 said:

 

You need to work on your English composition. I wasn't talking about the content of the post.

 

But I have zero clue what Eichorst said about Bo. I'm talking about the multiple instances of Bo losing his s#!t. The guy had zero composure.

 

Or are you denying that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Bo Pelini is a hot head?

I don't think so because I'm assuming you'd know what Eichorst said my composition is fine- you need to learn the facts.

Re-read your post I was making specific comments to the bolded type had nothing to do with Bo being a hot head- you said he was fired because of that- my point was clear on that statement.....to make it clear...again the weasels in charge did NOT publicly  cite Bo's behavior as the reason they fired him (even though that was probably the reason they did- that wasn't the point I was making though)

who doesn't remember the Eichorst statement about Iowa???

Edited November 6, 2017 by Whistlepig

[Whistlepig]

1 minute ago, Landlord said:

 

 

No. Seriously suggesting we should fire Mike Riley in his first season after 5-6 games and hire Scott Frost is misguided and non-sensical.

ok i miss read the post I thought he said hire SF before we hired MR- 

[Redreign22]

14 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

No. Seriously suggesting we should fire Mike Riley in his first season after 5-6 games and hire Scott Frost is misguided and non-sensical.

I suggested Riley should have never been hired. 

I was also right when I predicted to Eichorst sticking with Riley would cost him his job. Making that move would have been bold and balzy and correct. We all know Eichorst was too soft for that.

Its all irrelevant at this point.

[Landlord]

Bold for sure

 

Definitely ballsy

 

Correct? No. That would have been the worst possible thing in the world to do. I guess you could argue the second worst thing behind hiring Riley in the first place, but in the moment, there was at least a hypothetical possibility of Riley doing quite well. There is 100% certainty that firing him after 6 games would have been a total disaster. 

[Danimal]

Bo was a hot-head and a loudmouth, but he did have Eichorst totally pegged. Glad to have a stand-up guy like Moos in-place, hopefully he can right the ship. 

[Sparker]

3 hours ago, Redreign22 said:

I suggested Riley should have never been hired. 

I was also right when I predicted to Eichorst sticking with Riley would cost him his job. Making that move would have been bold and balzy and correct. We all know Eichorst was too soft for that.

Its all irrelevant at this point.

 

What do you mean Eichorst stuck with Riley? He didn't even have a chance to fire him. When do you think he should have fired Riley?

 

After the first year?

After 9-4 2016?

After NIU?

 

What cost SE his job was Bounds and Green finding out how SE conducted his coaching search, or lack of search. ADs can have bad hires and get more chances if they aren't incompetent. 

[Landlord]

3 hours ago, brophog said:

 

We've shown, in this thread and others, that time is not a factor in building a top tier program. We've had examples from eras dating back to the 70s showing that, if a program makes that jump, it's in a 3 year window, with the data showing a big jump specifically in year 2. Giving a new coach "more time" is in effect no different than giving the current coach "more time". 

 

What at it does do is increase the costs of firing a coach. 

 

 

This is true of some coaches, at some schools, but hardly enough to be a mathematical certainty, or even a very reliable general trend. Some coaches slow burn their way there, or, more notably but not really included in the discussion when it's framed this way, a lot of coaches have a mirage season early only to be exposed later on.

 

Mark Dantonio's record in his first three seasons at MSU was only a little better than where Mike Riley's is about to be. Wasn't until year 4 that he turned the corner and made the jump.

 

Dabo Swinney, if you count his year as interim head coach (I do, since he coached over half the season), went 6-7 in year 3 and needed until year 4 to win a conference championship, but even then, only finished ranked #22.

 

Jim Harbaugh had back to back 10 win seasons in his first two years, and is having his worst season thus far in year 3.

 

Mike Leach didn't get WSU turned around until year 4.

 

It took Mike Gundy until year 4 to have a top 25 season, and until year 6 to have a top 10 or double digit win season. Year 7 for a conference title.

 

Art Briles didn't get Baylor to full potential until year 6.

 

 

[brophog]

1 hour ago, Landlord said:

 

Mark Dantonio's record in his first three seasons at MSU was only a little better than where Mike Riley's is about to be. Wasn't until year 4 that he turned the corner and made the jump.

 

Dabo Swinney, if you count his year as interim head coach (I do, since he coached over half the season), went 6-7 in year 3 and needed until year 4 to win a conference championship, but even then, only finished ranked #22.

 

Jim Harbaugh had back to back 10 win seasons in his first two years, and is having his worst season thus far in year 3.

 

Mike Leach didn't get WSU turned around until year 4.

 

It took Mike Gundy until year 4 to have a top 25 season, and until year 6 to have a top 10 or double digit win season. Year 7 for a conference title.

 

Art Briles didn't get Baylor to full potential until year 6.

 

 

 

 

Baylor, KSU...even WSU to a lesser degree....these types are notable exceptions. They are literally building a program from the trash. Yes, they all take that 5-6 years to get there. They are also not analogous to Nebraska's situation. 

 

Dantonio was Year 4, not a big stretch in this argument, but he made strides those first three years, not as much in wins but in performance. Riley didn't, when you look at the actual metrics. Riley didn't make the jump his second year, he merely underperformed his first year. You can actually make an argument his first year is his best year. When you look at the metrics, year 1 and 2 are very similar, but year 1 had those close losses. Would I have fired Dantonio after year 3? No. He was averaging +0.9 YPP difference, a good number, and better than you'd expect with his record. Riley is at -0.3 this year and at -0.1 last year. Dantonio therefore comes down to how big of a deal you think one year is in a coach that was showing improvement, and if you think he's built a top tier program. I don't think he's analogous to Riley, at any rate.

 

Dabo:  I don't even know why he's on the list. 3 years, 3.5 years, whatever. We are drawing at straws on this one. 

 

Jim Harbaugh is replacing 20000 NFL draft picks, and still has a top tier defense in yards and scoring. You really don't think Harbaugh has shown he's a guy that can take Michigan to the elite level? If you do, fine, I can certainly that, but I think he's more example than exception. Three years and so far his worst is .769. 

 

So far, I'd say Dantonio depends on how strict you want to set the parameters, Dabo and Harbaugh are not exceptions, and the remainder are not analogous to the situation we've described. Gundy is interesting though.

 

He's clearly not in a Baylor/KSU type scenario, after all Les Miles had that team to a decent level. Gundy did have them going good, though not consistently at year 4. My question is really then, does he qualify as a coach of a top tier program. That's specifically what we are looking at, not just a 9 win plateau type team (ie Pelini). What does it take to bust through that and get back to where we want to be. I'd argue to some degree that Dantonio doesn't fit this either, though not to the degree of Gundy. To me, Gundy is in that plateau and hasn't shown he can be that guy. Opinions may differ, though.

 

 

 

Edited November 6, 2017 by brophog

[Landlord]

You said "We've had examples from eras dating back to the 70s showing that, if a program makes that jump, it's in a 3 year window, with the data showing a big jump specifically in year 2. Giving a new coach "more time" is in effect no different than giving the current coach "more time"."

 

I gave you examples that prove this isn't a bankable fact in all scenarios. You then proceed to essentially agree with me and say, "yeah, these don't work towards what I said because they're unique situations."

 

??